On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com> wrote:
>>> 2. Not acting because there *may* be a Formal Objection isn't a reason.
>> Granted, I don't know the players, who might object or how complex that
>> process is. If I tell a client I'm not going to follow the agreed scope of work
>> (the existing committed process and deadline, in this analogy) because he or
>> she may object, I'd expect to be fired. I'd continue to move ahead and follow
>> the expectations that have already been set. A Formal Objection will be dealt
>> with, but at least there will be *movement*.
>>
>> There is no "may" about it. We have people making such statements without
>> having even seen a decision. We have every reason to believe that they will
>> follow through. And that resolving such FOs will delay our entry to CR.
>
> Now you have me in a process knowledge-gap.
>
> Will a Formal Objection to an attribute that isn't even in the spec really delay an end of 2014 CR date? Is the process that complex?
All Formal Objections must be fully processed before we can enter CR. So it would shift all milestones starting with entry to CR by however long that takes.
>
> Is it likely that there may be other Formal Objections to other aspects of the spec? Should we toss those aspects aside if someone threatens a Formal Objection?
>
> Yes, those are rhetorical, but it seems to me this approach enables anyone who wants to threaten a Formal Objection as a way to strong-arm an action (or lack of action).
>
> To me, that isn't a reason to stop moving ahead on this or other issues that are already in play.
We hope that in this case, an extension spec can be a compromise that will not lead to strong objections from either side. We may be wrong on that. But the W3C Process requires groups to find proposals that draw the weakest objections. The Director has made clear to the Chairs that, while it may not be possible to avoid every Formal Objection, the WG should not run headlong intot hem either.
Regards,
Maciej